Rationality – Science – Technology
It all seems pretty clear. Yet there is fuzziness within that clarity.
Rationality leads to science. Science leads to technology.
Rationality is a specific state of mind. A human is rational if he has that state of mind. From that state of mind, he can think together a body of knowledge that is internally congruent and that other rational beings can acknowledge. Still, the science may be deadly wrong. For instance, medical science continues to evolve, sometimes in fundamental ways.
The science of today is not the science of yesterday, nor tomorrow.
The body of science, especially the potential science in a particular domain, can be immense. A small part of it leads to technology, being one or a set of tools that enable people to realize this part of the science, and in many cases also to replicate it at a big scale, so that many people can take advantage of it without delving into the science.
So far, so good.
Let’s take a closer look at the first element of the little chain.
What is rationality?
Conceptual versus subconceptual makes a difference.
If rationality is seen as purely conceptual, then the evolving science will also be of the conceptual kind. This science will not be about reality but only about the easily conceptualizable part. That may be a valid endeavor by itself, but one should not make the error of thinking this is necessarily about reality as a whole. That would be a plain logical error.
If rationality is seen as conceptual and subconceptual, things quickly become more challenging. It’s easy to derail into wishful thinking. Yet it’s crucial to take the challenge as rationally as possible precisely because the derailment comes so easily.
If rational people keep out of the subconceptual, irrational ones will take it and turn it into a swamp.
Towards science towards technology
Exclusively conceptual rationality may still lead to sound science, but it will be science about only a specific part of reality, carved out by a clear and present bias.
I cannot call that a critical stance.
Moreover, if this leads to technology being replicated at a big scale, this technology shapes the world – our environment – in ways that conform to this very bias.
This leads to more strictly conceptual rationality and an enlargement of the same bias.
This way, the technology’s success may eventually turn into an existential threat to humanity.
We don’t need less rationality, less science, less technology.
Quite the contrary.
But to lead all this in a good direction, we need more critical thinking, involving rationality as well as human depth.
Here lies an immense opportunity – and also a threat – in education. Do we want children to succeed in one narrow path of science and technology ― called ‘STEM’ nowadays? Do we want to mold them to the image of the molded?
Or do we want them to be critical before anything else?
Related Posts
The Meaning Economy
The traditional view of wealth, centered around GDP and economic power, is limited to the tangible ― money, assets, and possessions. Yet, as people strive to find purpose and fulfillment, it’s clear that the quality of our lives is measured in meaningful more than material wealth. Enter the concept of the Meaning Economy: a vision Read the full article…
From Group to Team
A group transforms into a team from the inside out. The common goal There is no group or team without a common goal, even if it’s only the goal of being a group. Naturally, a group exists to heighten the fitness of an organism. This may be the group itself or its members, or both. Read the full article…
Headscarf Here, Headscarf There
When I see a girl or woman walking down the street with a headscarf and bent shoulders, a bit sad from afar, I wonder if her troubles come from cultural oppression. I want to ask her but don’t, politely. Some bragging: in 1987, I had an Arab year. After eight months of intensive self-study, in Read the full article…